I just discovered that I have access to editing the FAQ if need be and I doubt there'd be any reason not to mention tes3mp at this stage. If anyone wants to give me the green light to do the necessary edits I'd be up to it.

I see TES3MP as more of a feature-fork, so while it isn't what OpenMW is aiming for at the moment there are those developing the feature without contributing to the 1.0 goals of OpenMW itself. That's normal in open-source where the main project wants to focus on one area. We have this already with cc9cii's fork that includes support for Oblivion and Skyrim which are not a part of the 1.0 goals.

The OpenMW team is currently directing all of its focus towards getting to version 1.0 and multiplayer is not our immediate concern. However another project called TES3MP has forked our code, implemented multiplayer and is keeping up to date with changes in the official OpenMW branch. While the future is uncertain, it is conceivable that the multiplayer fork might get merged back into ours when both projects are in a suitable state for it.

Probably goes without saying, but it should have hyperlinks in the final version

I think that "our immediate concern" and "our code" suggests that the project is more closed off than it really is, since it's not run by a secret cabal but instead is open to all contributors.

Perhaps clarify that "getting to version 1.0" really means that we're just trying to reach the goals we've outlined for it.

I find the "while the future is uncertain" phrase to be a little cliché and redundant with "it is conceivable" and "might".

It would be good to add a bit about what merging back means, for those who are unfamiliar with version control terminology.

Here's my suggested revision with these in mind:

OpenMW contributors are currently directing all of their focus towards the project's version 1.0 goals, which does not include multiplayer. However another project called TES3MP has forked the main project's code in order to implement multiplayer, and is keeping up to date with changes in the official OpenMW branch. It is conceivable that the multiplayer fork could be merged back into the main branch when both projects are in a suitable state for it, which would allow for a single app that can run both singleplayer and multiplayer Morrowind.

Even then, I could see this being confusing to someone who doesn't know what "forks", "branches", and "merging" means. Perhaps further improvements could be made.

It is conceivable that the multiplayer fork could be merged back into the main branch when both projects are in a suitable state for it, which would allow for a single app that can run both singleplayer and multiplayer Morrowind.

Maybe make it two sentences? "[...]in a suitable state for it. This would allow [...]".

OpenMW contributors are currently directing all of their focus towards the project's version 1.0 goals, which do not include multiplayer. However, another project called TES3MP has forked the main project's code in order to implement multiplayer, and is keeping up to date with changes in the official OpenMW branch. It is conceivable that the multiplayer fork could be merged back into the main branch when both projects are in a suitable state for it. This would allow for a single app that can run both singleplayer and multiplayer Morrowind.